Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.41 seconds)The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 45 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Sutton & Sons Ltd. on 13 May, 1980
Further reliance was also placed on in the cases of CED v. V. Venugopala Varma Rajah [1976] 105 ITR 593 (SO) and Dr. K.A. Dhairyawan v. J.R. Thakur AIR 1958 SO 789 for the proposition that trees, etc., are not to be considered as part of agricultural land, in the case of CIT v. Sutton & Sons Ltd. [1981] 127 ITR 57 (Cal.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Dumraon Cold Storage Refrigeration ... on 11 January, 1983
), CIT v. Dumraon Cold Storage Refrigeration Service (P.) Ltd. [1983] 141 ITR 700 (Pat.)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I vs Lilavati Thakorelal Patel on 21 February, 1984
7. We have considered the submissions and materials to which our attention was drawn. We have also gone through relevant judicial pronouncements on which considerable reliance was placed at the Bar. We would only mention that subsequent to.the decision in the case of Siddharth J. Desai (supra), Their Lordships of Gujarat High Court had an occasion to consider similar issue in the case of CIT v. Smt. Lilavati Thakorelal Patel where again various judicial pronouncements were considered. We would only like to mention that the exemption is in respect of agricultural land, i.e., the character of the land and not the character of the assessee whether agriculturist or not.
Motibhai D. Patel vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat on 6 October, 1980
14. The learned counsel further submitted that no res judicata was applicable. There should be uniformity in the findings, otherwise there would be great confusion. He further relied on an order of the Jaipur Bench in 25 ITD 2 (sic) and strongly relied on the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Dr. Motibhai D. Patel's case (supra).
Manubhai A. Sheth And Others vs N.D. Nirgudkar, 2Nd Income-Tax ... on 18 June, 1980
13. Referring to the report of Shri Mandlik he submitted that the report of 1966 was very clear and Shri Mandlik on re-examination had accepted that he had visited the land and had given a report. In his report he had stated that signs of cultivation were found on this land and a well was also dug by that time. It was submitted that this being a contemporaneous record only one year after the sale importance should be attached to it and the land should be considered as agricultural land. Regarding the planting of fruit trees he submitted that it was not for creating evidence and it was merely a surmise of the Judicial Member that it was done for creating evidence. He further submitted that the fact that it was purchased by a housing society should not mean that the land was not agricultural. The Housing Society might have needed it for housing purposes but the thing to be seen is whether at the time of sale it was an agricultural land or not. He pointed out that even in the municipal areas there could be agricultural operation and for this purpose he relied on the decision of Manubhai A. Sheth v. N.D. Nirgudkar, Second ITO [1981] 128 ITR 87 (Bom.). He submitted that even if the land was sold for several years agricultural income was being shown from this land and it could not be held to be only for creating evidence. Even up to the immediately preceding year agricultural income was being shown by the assessee. In this connection he referred to the records of the Department in the shape of assessment orders under the Income-tax Act as well as Wealth-tax Act. These were placed at pages 129 to 171 of the paper book. In these orders it is shown that some agricultural income has been shown by the assessee but the same was not brought to tax in the assessment. He referred to the description of the land from which it appeared that it was agricultural land. In this connection, a reference was made to the details at page 171 of the paper book which was a statement of the return showing the land at village Umra as agricultural land.